Translate

Saturday, September 12, 2015

LEUKEMIA CASES RISE NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES : NRC CANCELS STUDY

""Licensing a nuclear power plant is, in my view, licensing random premeditated murder. First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you're doing—so it's premeditated. You can't say, "I didn't know." Second, the evidence on radiation-producing cancer is beyond doubt. I've worked fifteen years on it [as of 1982], and so have many others. It is not a question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses."~ from an interview with Dr. John Gofman, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, DIRECTOR OF RADIATION AND HEALTH RESEARCH, THE MANHATTAN PROJECT, MEDICAL PHYSICIST, for the book 'Nuclear Witnesses'.THE U.S.NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC), WITH AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF ABOUT $2 BILLION, HAS JUST CANCELLED A STUDY TO DETERMINE IF, IN AMERICA, LEUKEMIA CASES AND MORTALITY RATES RISE NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

THE NRC CITED HIGH COST (ABOUT $8 MILLION) AND THE TIME AND RESOURCES REQUIRED TO FINISH THE STUDY WHEN IT CANCELLED THE STUDY THAT WAS ALREADY UNDERWAY, ENTERING PHASE 2.

THOSE OF US OUTSIDE THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THIS STUDY COMPLETED AND SEE WHAT THE NAS FOUND IN THE 6 YEARS PRIOR.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE ANY PIECE OF DATA THEY HAVE ANY TIME WE PLEASE TO.THOSE INSIDE THAT GROUP MOST LIKELY KNOW WHAT THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS SHOWED...LIKELY THE SAME THING THAT WAS SHOWN IN STUDY AFTER STUDY IN EUROPE,

FRANCE, GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN AND SWITZERLAND HAVE ALL DONE SUCH EXTENSIVE STUDIES AND THE RESULTS ARE DAMNING TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

The French finding is persuasive as it was determined in two separate ways. First, by a comprehensive nationwide case-control study (odds ratio, OR=1.9). And second, by a conventional incidence study (standardized incidence ratio, SIR=1.9).

Many newspapers in France (but none in the UK) carried this story prominently, but in fact it is the fourth European study showing this result. After the shocking results of the KiKK study in 2007, further studies with the same or similar findings were carried out in Germany , Great Britain and Switzerland.

[Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, Schmiedel S, Blettner M. Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. (2008) Int J Cancer; 122: 721-726.

Conclusion:The new French study provides valuable additional evidence for an increased leukaemia risk near nuclear power plants. The new data fits squarely within the epidemiological evidence of increased childhood leukemias near NPPs in three other European countries. Over the four multisite studies, a consistent pattern of increased incidences of childhood leukemias near NPPs has clearly emerged. Indeed, these increases in childhood leukemias have been found not just in Europe but all over the world. The 2008 Laurier et al study taken together with Laurier and Bard’s 1999 study indicate a stunning total of over 60 studies worldwide which have examined child cancers near nuclear facilities, with most of them finding cancer increases.

(Dr. Fairlie is a consultant on radiation matters to the European Parliament, He has a degree in radiation biology from Bart’s Hospital in London and his doctoral studies at Imperial College in London and, briefly, Princeton University in the US concerned the radiological hazards of nuclear fuel reprocessing. He formerly worked as a civil servant on the regulation of radiation risks from nuclear power stations. From 2000 to 2004, he was head of the Secretariat of the UK Government’s CERRIE Committee on internal radiation risks.)

The official reaction to these increases was that the estimated radiation doses from intakes of nuclides released by these facilities were too low (by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude) to explain the increased leukemias.

Various explanations were offered for the increases, including population mixing, however these increases are still occurring despite the existence of long-stabilised populations.

The UK Governments Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) then concluded that the explanation for the increased leukemias remained unknown but was unlikely to be radiation.

In 2004, the CERRIE Committee discussed the matter and its Report (www.cerrie.org) stated that there could be very large cumulative uncertainties in internal dose estimates because of uncertainties in the biokinetic and dosimetric models used  which had to be multiplied together.

From the examples discussed by the CERRIE Committee, net uncertainties in dose could be large enough to explain the increased leukemias in populations near the UK facilities.Three recent epidemiological studies have, somewhat startlingly, rekindled the childhood leukemia debate.

In June 2007, a study by Baker and Hoel (2007) at the Medical University of South Carolina lent new support to the idea that increased leukemias were linked to nuclear facilities. The authors carried out a sophisticated meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, US, Germany, Japan and Spain.

They found that death rates for children up to the age of 9 were elevated by 5 to 24 per cent, depending on their proximity to nuclear facilities, and by 2 to 18 per cent in children and young people up to the age of 25. Incidence rates were increased by 14 to 21 per cent in 0 to 9 year-olds and 7 to 10 percent in 0 to 25 year-olds.

But it is two very recent German studies which have dramatically re-opened the matter.

They provide much stronger evidence of an association between increased incidences of childhood leukemias and nuclear installations than previous studies.

They are also significant because of their unequivocal establishment of an inverse distance- effect relationship and because of the involvement of the German Government's BfS,  the equivalent of the UKs HPA in the KiKK study.

The first German study was published in June 2007 by Hoffmann et al.

The authors found 14 cases of leukemia between 1990 and 2005 in children living within 5 km of the Krümmel nuclear plant in Geesthacht and a neighbouring nuclear research facility in northern Germany.

The 14 observed leukemia cases significantly exceeded the 0.45 predicted cases based on county and national incidence rates.

The team concluded that the Geesthacht cluster was (then) the largest series of childhood leukemia cases among the various leukemia clusters near other European nuclear facilities, including Dounreay and Sellafield, UK and La Hague, France.

However the second German study is the most important of the three.

This is the KiKK study published in two articles by Spix et al in January 2008 and by Kaatsch et al in February 2008. (KiKK = Epidemiologische Studie zu Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken = Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants).

The study covered 16 (out of 20) large nuclear reactor locations in Germany between 1980 and 2003, and examined 1,592 under-fives with cancer with a control group of 4,735 children.

The KiKK studys main findings were a 0.60 fold increase in solid cancers and a 1.17 fold increase in leukaemias among young children living near German nuclear reactors.

These increases are very large compared with the increases near other nuclear facilities (see Baker and Hoel above).

But more importantly, and controversially, the study found an inverse distance - effect relationship linking the cancers directly to the nuclear facilities.

The study tested this relationship by examining whether other risk factors (confounders) could have had an appreciable effect on the result. This proved not to be the case: the proximity of residence to the nuclear power plant remained the most likely explanation. The KiKK study had been commissioned in 2003 by the Bundesampt fur Strahlenshutz (the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the equivalent of the UKs HPA) following prolonged pressure by IPPNW Germany and other citizen groups.

The publication of the KiKK study in December 2007 resulted in a public outcry and considerable public debate in Germany which continues to this day and which has been unreported in the UK.The KiKK authors stated they were surprised by their results, but as a result of the furore, they issued a further report to allay public fears (BfS, 2007). The authors stated that study only found a small number of cases of cancer: 37 observed cases where 17 would have been expected statistically. This meant that less than one additional leukaemia case occurred per year.

However the authors failed to explain that leukemia is a rare disease and that the cancers had occurred in a sparsely populated region. The authors said that the 20 additional cases were only found within a 5 km radius. However they did not consider that the reciprocal distance rule would add many more cases if applied to the whole region.

It is now officially accepted in Germany (Weiss, 2007) that children living near nuclear power plants develop cancer and leukaemia more frequently than those living further away. "

KNOWING THESE FINDINGS, WHY WOULDN'T THE NRC WANT TO DETERMINE IF AMERICANS LIVING NEAR OUR AGING NUCLEAR FACILITIES ARE ALSO AT HIGHER RISK FOR LEUKEMIA?

IS IT TO KEEP AMERICANS FROM DEMANDING THE LEAKING RUST BUCKETS BE CLOSED?TO NOT SHOW THAT MANY FAMILIES HAVE A LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON WHEN THEY TRY TO SUE SUCH FACILITIES AFTER SOMEONE DEVELOPS LEUKEMIA?

THEY KNOW!NOW WE KNOW!WHY NOT "MAKE IT OFFICIAL"?FINISH THE STUDY!

IS THE NRC SUPPOSED TO PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS OR THOSE WHO OWN AND OPERATE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?

The [CANCELLED] study, initiated in 2009 and carried out under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), had completed Phase 1 and was looking at seven pilot nuclear sites around the country, a project that was estimated to cost $8 million.

[THEY'RE THROWING OUT 6 YEARS OF THIS STUDY! SIX YEARS AND HOW MUCH COST?]

“An $8 million price tag for the next phase of this study is a drop in the bucket for an agency with a $1 billion annual operating budget,” added Folkers.

The NRC identified the “significant amount of time and resources needed and the agency’s current budget constraints” as its excuse for terminating the study.

Folkers noted that, in reality, nuclear industry manipulation, rather than budget constraints, could be behind the NRC’s sudden decision to abandon the NAS study. In documents obtained by Beyond Nuclear [A 'WATCHDOG' GROUP] it was revealed that NRC staff had been approached by the president of U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), John Boice, offering a cheaper, faster and LESS sensitive study design to replace the NAS study, although the NRC has not yet agreed to accept the NCRP bid.

CHEAPER, OR MORE TO THE LIKING OF THOSE WHO STAND TO LOSE A LOT OF MONEY IF THE BETTER STUDY SHOWS A CORRELATION BETWEEN PROXIMITY TO THEIR "LEAKERS" AND LEUKEMIA?

IN THE BOOK 'NUCLEAR ROULETTE', THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VERY STUDY THAT THE NRC HAS JUST CANCELLED (PAGE 60). THERE IS A DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS OF AMERICAN EPIDEMIOLOGISTS THAT, YES, THERE IS AN ALMOST 10% HIGHER RATE OF LEUKEMIA IN CHILDREN LIVING DOWNWIND FROM EVEN THE NEWER NUCLEAR PLANTS, AND A RATE ALMOST 14% HIGHER NEAR THE OLDER PLANTS!QUIETLY, ON JANUARY 15, 2009, AS ONE OF HIS FINAL ACTS AS PRESIDENT, GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED OFF ON RAISING THE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF AIRBORNE RADIATION EXPOSURE FOR ALL AMERICANS.THE EPA WAS THE AGENCY THAT INITIATED THIS CHANGE! THIS ALLOWED "ACCEPTABLE" LEVELS OF STRONTIUM-90 IN DRINKING WATER TO BE INCREASED BY 1,000-FOLD, AND ALLOWABLE IODINE-131 WAS RAISED 100,000-FOLD! WE WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS BY AMERICAN MEDIA, AND THERE WERE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO PUBLIC NOTICES WHEN THIS HAPPENED. THE NEW RULES WERE EVEN SUBMITTED LATE SO THEY WERE NOT PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER UNTIL OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.THE POINT IS, OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES HAVE CATERED TO AND CODDLED BIG INDUSTRY FOR SO LONG THAT IT IS THE "NORM". THEY HAVE PUT HUMAN HEALTH LAST ACROSS THE BOARD.THEIR MAIN GOAL HAS BEEN TO MAKE IT EASY FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO MAKE PROFITS WHILE CUTTING CORNERS AND IGNORING THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITIES THEY EXIST IN. THEY HAVE HIDDEN FACTS, MANIPULATED DATA, MADE EXCUSES AND GENERALLY IGNORED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE...OR NOT DONE. TO KEEP THESE UNNECESSARY NUCLEAR FACILITIES HUMMING, THEY ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE OUR CHILDREN. TO MAKE FILTHY NUCLEAR ENERGY PROFITABLE, THEY ARE WILLING TO IRRADIATE ALL OF US INTO EARLY GRAVES, IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES. THEY ARE MAKING IT EASIER AND EASIER FOR THESE NUCLEAR WASTE GENERATORS TO JUST DUMP THAT WASTE EVERYWHERE, ALMOST ANYWHERE THEY PLEASE AND IN SHODDY CONTAINERS.

THE NRC ISSUES "WARNINGS" THAT IT ALMOST NEVER ACTS ON, TALKS ABOUT FINES, BUT ALLOWS "EXTENSIONS", AND THEN MORE EXTENSIONS TO THE WORST NUKE PLANTS THAT EXIST IN AMERICA.

THE HANFORD "SUPER-DUMP" SITE WAS SCHEDULED TO BE CLOSED AND CLEANED YEARS AGO, IS KNOWINGLY POLLUTING THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND SURROUNDING LAND, BUT HANFORD, WORST OF THE WORST, KEEPS GETTING "EXTENSIONS".UNTOLD THOUSANDS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF THAT ONE DISGUSTING SITE ALONE.

WE CAN ACCEPT THIS AS WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE AND JUST FACE OUR FATES, OR WE CAN TURN THE TABLES ON THOSE WHO SEE US ALL AS EXPENDABLE.

THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY KNOWS THEIR FAILING, CRACKED RUINS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE ALMOST ALL PAST THEIR INTENDED DESIGN LIMITS, BUT THEY KEEP APPLYING FOR AND GETTING EXTENSIONS TO CONTINUE TO CONTAMINATE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR BODIES WITH ANTIQUATED HEAPS OF DISINTEGRATING MATERIALS.

THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, EVEN THE NRC AND EPA HAVE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT "THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION". ANY, ALL RADIATION CAN CAUSE TERRIBLE EFFECTS IN A HUMAN BODY.

READ WHAT A MAN WHO ACTUALLY ASSISTED ON THE MANHATTAN PROJECT HAD TO SAY LATER ABOUT THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF "LOW DOSE" RADIATION. HE WAS PART OF THAT OLD "ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION".http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter4.html

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RUNS ON TAXPAYER DOLLARS.WE ARE THE TAXPAYERS.WE ALL FOOT THE BILLS THEY RACK UP.

WE ARE EACH WORTH WHATEVER IT TAKES TO SEE AN HONEST ASSESSMENT OF THE INCIDENCE OF CANCERS NEAR THESE CAMOUFLAGED NUCLEAR BOMBS THAT ARE BEING USED ON ALL OF US.

EVERY AGENCY GIVEN THE TASK OF PROTECTING US HAS SOLD US OUT.THE EPA, FDA, NRC, ALL OF THEM.

WE WILL HAVE TO HELP OURSELVES IF WE WANT A QUALITY LIFE HERE.WE WILL HAVE TO BE THE ONES TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.

ONLY WHEN WE END NUCLEAR ENERGY'S DEADLY ASSAULT CAN WE HOPE TO SEE AN END TO TONS AND TONS OF NUCLEAR WASTE EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT HAS TO BE DUMPED ON OTHERS, SPREADING THE CANCER RISKS, CONTAMINATING MORE AND MORE COMMUNITIES EVERY YEAR.

HERE'S WHERE THE POWER PLANTS ARE AND THE "SAFE" DISTANCES FROM EACH...NOT MUCH SAFETY:

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF AMERICA'S POWER GRID WENT DOWN? HOW LONG COULD THESE FACILITIES GENERATE THEIR OWN ELECTRICITY BEFORE POWER FAILURE AND NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS?SOME SAY A MONTH, TOPS.

HOW SUSCEPTIBLE IS EACH TO TERRORIST ATTACK?

COULD THOSE NEARBY EVACUATE IN TIME?

THIS IS HOW RADIATION ENTERS HUMAN BEINGS FROM THOSE POWER PLANTS:

YOU SEE, IT AFFECTS EVERYTHING.

AND HERE IS WHERE THEY DUMP THE WORST WASTE:

THE WORST, NOT ALL, JUST THE WORST.

AND THEN THERE ARE THE MINES THAT STILL CONTAMINATE THEIR SURROUNDINGS.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF OLD DUMPING SITES IN EVERY OCEAN AND FRANCE WAS EXPOSED FOR PAYING THE ITALIAN MAFIA TO DUMP SOME OF THEIR WASTED OFF THE COAST OF SOMALIA JUST RECENTLY.

THE ENGLISH CHANNEL IS FULL OF NUCLEAR WASTE.

IS THERE A RIVER ON ANY CONTINENT NOT AFFECTED BY RUNOFF OF SOME KIND?

NOW THINK OF HOW LIFE WOULD BE WITHOUT HAVING TO WONDER ABOUT THOSE YOU LOVE GETTING CANCER BECAUSE OF THESE UNNECESSARY PLACES.